This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Wesley's argument that preaching is vain if Calvinism is true

John Wesley's classic statement of the objection goes like this:

But if this be so, then is all preaching vain? It is needless to them that are elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved. Therefore, the end of preaching -- to save should -- is void with regard to them; and it is useless to them that are not elected, for they cannot possibly be saved: They, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be damned. The end of preaching is therefore void with regard to them likewise; so that in either case our preaching is vain, as you hearing is also vain.

The main thrust of my response to this objection is to argue that while Wesley's argument gets at something that seems to me correct, for in the sense that I don't think the counterfactual relationship between preaching and salvation quite works the same way as it might under Arminianism, but nevertheless the Calvinists have two motivations for evangelism intact: the obedience to command motivation, and the instrumental role motivation.

So I think I've actually done more to undercut Wesley's argument than I have to help it. Sorry, JW, gotta follow the argument where it leads.

22 comments:

The elected are granted faith upon hearing the Word of God. There doesn't seem to be any indication that particular words need be said. So one could quote a proverb, such as "spare the rod, spoil the child," and that should do the trick.

And it need not be in the hearer's language, either. We could say it in English, and the Swahili hearer should come to faith.

If we are skeptical that hearing such a proverb will "do the trick," and that something more is needed, such as specific words about Jesus, his death, and resurrection, and that they be said in the hearer's language, then aren't we really acknowledging that receiving faith is somehow dependent upon our understanding, our imagination, and our will, not just the fact that we are elected?

The problem with this argument is that it applies to pain and suffering as well. After all, if no wrong will end up superfluous, why do I have to try to stop them? God is going to take care of it. There will be no gratuitous evils.

One would have to know how JW defined "preaching". Did he mean to cover all oral communication of the gospel? Or only preaching (monologue delivered orally to a group)?

That quote alone seems to imply all oral communication. Assuming that is so,there is still accuracy to what JW says, because nothing can frustrate the Calvinist will of God. If God has decreed someone's election, they will be save regardless of whether they hear any preaching at all. Perhaps they read a tract, or a Bible, or have a dream or vision (as some Moslems attest), etc.

Even if everyone stopped preaching, that would not be a frustration of God's decree, but a fulfilment of it because God decrees all things. Furthermore, stopping all preaching would not change the number of elect chosen by God.

Because God (under the Calvinist scheme) has also decreed whether certain people will believe in Calvinism and whether certain people are motivated to preach, it will never be the case that all Christians do not preach.

It also seems that JW was getting at the number of people saved, and the fact that that number will never change. There is no point in preaching in order to change that number, because the number and identity of the elect was decreed before creation.

I think you're all missing the point of JW's argument. In Romans 10, Paul tells us that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the preaching of Christ. So even a Calvinist would agree that the way God's elect are saved is by means of preaching. But what is the point of preaching? What relevance does it have to bringing people to faith on a Calvinist perspective? If it's only by hearing the words, then it wouldn't really matter what language the preaching was in, or whether or not the person was even paying attention.

JW's point is that faith comes about by an interaction of hearing the preaching of Christ and the individual's understanding, imagination, emotions, and will. And it's difficult to see how to fit this into a Calvinist perspective.

Steve: "i) There is no one-to-one correspondence between hearing the word and regeneration since both the elect and the reprobate can hear the word, but the reprobate remain unregenerate from start to finish."

Followers

About Me

I am the author of C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, published by Inter-Varsity Press. I received a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1989.